A lot of people argue this film has no point. My response is...so? Films don't always have to have a narrative, a message, a plot, etc. I think films can be made to create interesting images, like art. Art rarely has to "make sense" to be appreciated. This film was made to invoke feelings, and you will certainly have some sort of feeling when watching this film. It's impossible not to. Love it or hate it, this movie does what it sets out to do.
shareDoes a film need to have a point? No, not in my view anyway, so I completely agree with you.
"No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved" Oscar Wilde said that :)
As long as it has aesthetic quality to it that's all that matters. You are a very wise person Mr/Mrs/Ms Fistful of Pennies and make a valid point :)
It seems to me that one of the scenes most often chided for being gratuitous does actually have a point: the image of the sliced eye functions as a metaphor for the way the movie intends to assault its viewers with a violent, irrational, anti-narrative structure.
shareI like that!
You know I'm doing a films studies exam in this movie so d'you mind if I rob, or borrow, that idea from you?
It would help :)
Yes, films do have to have a point. It's doesn't have to be a narrative point, but there does have to be one. Anything else is just the artist's own masturbation, a joke, daring us to be honest and admit it is so.
The only feeling this film invoked in me is "I want my 17 minutes back". I don't care one way or the other about any of the characters. I don't care about the director. I'm not shocked or offended. Just ripped-off.
Film's don't have to have a point - per-se. Films just need to be aesthetically pleasing, and although you could argue that that is a "point" in itself I don't believe they don't have to "say" anything.
I won't argue you with you when you say that "I want my 17 minutes back", that's your opinion, and I will accept that in your eyes the film may have failed, but I don't agree that a film has to have a "point". It can make observations, statements, and deliver messages of it's own free will but it doesn't have to do anything that it doesn't want to, so long as it's well made.
All I ask from a film is that it is well made...And I suppose that's where I can't force you to agree with me. In your eyes, I'm guessing, your beef with Dali is that in not having a point, in having characters that you don't care about, he created something which you thought was w@ank. Whereas I thought, in not having a point, in having characters that were morally, emotionally, and rationally ambiguous it pushed the boundaries of film, imagination, and reason whilst remaining beautiful. The film helped me realise how characters, plot, and the basic formula of cause and effect can be thrown out the window to comedic effect rather than tragedy. Once again you could argue that this artistic endeavour, rather than a political or social one, is a point in itself. However, I'm guessing, that you are probably still of the view that this film is plain sh!t.
So would you agree that a film doesn't have to have a point so long as it's not w@ank? Would you agree with that?
Among the most childish stuff a person can say is the such as "I want my 17 minutes back".. I mean, have you any idea idea of how moronic this sounds? I can only picture in my head, a child or a mentally impaired person saying something like that. I mean, you didnt like it? its all right! Just dont be retarded.
Just out of curiosity, if you could have your 17 minutes back, what would you do? J*rk off or play your xbox?
- He moves his lips when he reads. What does that tell you about him?
Art in general, cinema included, has a point if the artist wants it to have a point.
Art rarely has to "make sense" to be appreciated.
Essentially I don't think films need to have a point as long as the viewer knows what to expect. I'm not sure why this has been brought up here though as Un Chien Andalou is not a film. It is a short and is also nowhere near Bunuel best work.
shareFilms don't need to have a point in terms of conveying a message, but they do need to avoid making you feel like it was just a waste of time.
shareIf they want to make money on the film that is. Not all films are made for a big audience, they might just be for the sake of art or for the creators to express their emotions or views.
Some films are probably made about expecting people not to watch all of it...I can probably think of a few- Like Harmony Korine's "Thrash Humpers" :P (which I for the record enjoyed with it's absurd humour and original concept, but I doubt most people would care for).
I disagree.
Everything has to have a point. You might say a movie doesnt need to have a "regular plot" - But a point, yes it does - Might it be to shock the audience, to bring something weird, different, or for the director to express his feelings with images.
But when you say a movie doesnt need to have a point, and only needs to be aesthetically pleasing, it reminds me too much of the action movies of nowadays that has absolutely no ideas or points and only visual (car chases, explosions, etc) - So, beware with that.
I think a movie should be engaging...pointlessness doesnt matter then.
shareLife doesn't even have a point. Why should a film have one?
share